---
type: source
title: "MetaDAO's Futarchy AMM: 50% Spot Liquidity Borrowing Mechanism — How It Works and What It Means"
author: "Solana Compass (Kollan House interview)"
url: https://solanacompass.com/learn/Lightspeed/how-metadao-became-solanas-breakout-token-launchpad-kollan-house
date: 2026-02-01
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: thread
status: processed
priority: high
tags: [metadao, futarchy-amm, liquidity, governance-markets, mechanism-design, spot-pool]
---

## Content

Detailed explanation of MetaDAO's Futarchy AMM liquidity borrowing mechanism, sourced from interview with Kollan House (MetaDAO).

**The problem it solves:** Previously, proposers needed approximately $150,000 in capital to fund proposal markets — capital that remained locked throughout the proposal period.

**The 50% borrowing mechanism:** "The futarchy AMM borrows spot liquidity. It's a spot market primarily, but then when a proposal comes in, it borrows 50% of the total spot liquidity and puts it in a proposal." — Kollan House

**How it works:**
- When a proposal launches, the mechanism allocates 50% of available spot liquidity to conditional markets for that proposal
- The remaining 50% continues servicing regular token trades
- Eliminates proposer capital requirements
- Reduces spam (no capital lock required from proposers — but the mechanism itself "burns" 50% of pool liquidity during the proposal period)

**Mechanism limitations (House's own framing):** "The mechanism operates at approximately 80 IQ — it can prevent catastrophic decisions but lacks sophistication for complex executive choices."

**Additional design observations:**
- MetaDAO implemented spending limits based on real-world observations
- Transitioned from capped to uncapped raises based on feedback
- No specific post-FairScale protocol-level design changes documented

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The 50% liquidity borrowing mechanism directly determines governance market depth. Since governance depth = 50% of spot liquidity, and spot liquidity is proportional to token market cap, the mechanism creates a market-cap-dependent governance quality gradient. Large-cap tokens (META itself) have deep, manipulation-resistant governance markets. Small-cap tokens (early ICOs, FairScale-type situations) have thin governance markets where the implicit put option problem applies.

**What surprised me:** The "80 IQ" self-assessment from MetaDAO's own creator is remarkably candid. This directly addresses my disconfirmation question: the mechanism's own designer acknowledges it's not sophisticated enough for complex decisions. This is not just a theoretical limitation — it's an operational design choice. The mechanism is deliberately tuned for filtering catastrophic decisions, not for subtle quality discrimination.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Specific data on governance market depth per proposal type. The mechanism design is documented, but the empirical liquidity distribution across proposal types (ICO governance vs. treasury spending vs. strategic decisions) is not.

**KB connections:**
- futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs — NEEDS SCOPING: this holds only when spot liquidity is deep; for small-cap ICO tokens, the 50% borrowing mechanism provides thin governance markets where the FairScale implicit put option risk is live
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — the 50% borrowing mechanism confirms this: uncontested decisions = normal market depth; contested decisions = 50% pool borrowed, which may create liquidity fragmentation
- Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles — the "80 IQ" admission supports this claim: futarchy at small scale needs to be mixed with other mechanisms for complex decisions

**Extraction hints:**
- Claim candidate: "MetaDAO's liquidity borrowing mechanism creates a market-cap-dependent governance quality gradient where manipulation resistance scales with token spot liquidity, making futarchy most reliable for established protocols and least reliable for early-stage ICO tokens"
- Enrichment candidate: Update futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs with scope qualifier: "holds when spot liquidity is sufficient (governance market depth > attacker's capital); fails when 50% of spot liquidity provides insufficient depth for competitive arbitrage"

**Context:** Kollan House is MetaDAO's founder/lead developer. His "80 IQ" framing is a deliberate self-scoping of the mechanism's current capability. This is intellectually honest and strengthens the claim that the manipulation resistance claim needs scoping — the mechanism's designer acknowledges it himself.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for arbitrageurs
WHY ARCHIVED: Provides the mechanism explanation for WHY manipulation resistance scales with market cap — the 50% borrowing design codifies the relationship
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on deriving the scope condition from the mechanism design — governance market depth = f(spot liquidity) = f(market cap). This gives a precise scope qualifier for the manipulation resistance claim.
